freddy_fazbears_pizzafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Story (FNaF2)/@comment-23.243.146.21-20141231215148/@comment-107.195.173.52-20150111035852
Firstly, let me point out how ludicrous it is to assume that no one can see the banner notifying people reading these pages that a lot of the content in the game hasn't been explained, so most of it is conjecture or theory at best. Second, for that very reason, you don't KNOW anything. You are merely asserting that you do, and that assertion without direct canonical explanation means nothing but a load of hot air. So, that is to say, you THINK you know what the real story is, but in reality...you don't. And neither do I, for certain...but what I do know is that such a theory is pretty out there in some major areas. Now then, let's carry on to why such claims are unfounded, and highly dubious at very best, bordering on completely wrong at the absolute worst. A brief personal aside: my biggest issue with this theory (and it is ''a theory), is that the entire thing ''requires the phone guy to be the murderer. How do you know? Simply put...again, you don't. That immediately ruins a major assumption (and it is an assumption, because there's no canonical evidence) of this theory beyond wild extrapolations of subtle foreshadowing. Where is the correlation between the phone guy and the purple man? There was NEVER a mention of any purple man in either the game (barring the death mini-games), and NOTHING about the killer was ever revealed. How could the purple man be the phone guy, and if he WERE the phone guy, why would he still be there after the incident occurs? Using the Occam razor explanation "the culprit always returns to the scene of the crime" is little weak of a conclusion here, too: there's absolutely NO information about the purple man besides the low res mini-games, which don't really explain much of anything beyond that he was responsible. How does one jump to such a conclusion with hardly, if any evidence? It baffles me, really. Also, is the "purple man" even male? Is he/she masked? Are they single-handedly responsible, or do they have an accomplice? This is unknown. Also, to cite actual canon, one of the news articles on the poster replacement in the hallway mentions that a suspect in connection with the missing children incident was arrested. Again, while we are not told the identity of such a person, it is evermore likely that phone guy is not he, for the phone guy continues to advise the player. It is hard to conclude that the phone guy could be the murderer without more compelling hard evidence, which is not currently available. Phone guy may play the part of an unreliable narrator, but I find it hard to get the idea that he's the murderer based on that, he could just have anxiety issues, and who would blame him. It is implied that FNaF2 is the prequel to FNaF1, and I feel that this fact is most likely to be confirmed by the creator, given the nature of the second game's mechanics as opposed to the first, and the end paycheck along with phone guy's message on night 6. One thing is for certain, Fredbear's Family Diner did exist, and was shut down. Whether that had anything to do with a killing or not has yet to be determined. It is confirmed that a child was supposedly killed by a mysterious purple figure during the event described within the "give cake" mini-game, but whether this was Fredbear's Family Diner is still not confirmed. In all likelihood, it may very well be such a locale. Also: the missing children incident most definitely canonically occurred during FNaF2, due to the mention of the investigation by the phone guy. This does not appear to be sinisterly mentioned, and instead the nervousness or uneasiness of the phone guy may reflect his worries that he may be out of a job soon, or that the company will deal with him if he tells anyone about the ongoing investigation. Again, this is purely conjecture, however. His apparent anger toward the player's return for shift night 6 may be because he was told in a no nonsense way that no one should be in the restaurant that night...or that the company did not wish to pay anyone overtime (which would reflect the greed and laziness that lead to the eventual closure of Fredbear's for health code violations and other happenings), what night 6 was considered to be upon completion. The conjecture that the animatrons were specifically designed to stop child killers is not canon, but the link to a crime database to recognize child predators is, again mentioned by phone guy. One thing is for certain, everything that the phone guy mentions on night 6 of FNaF2 appears to indicate that the bite of '87 occurs to someone at the last birthday party before Freddy's closes down. Because the bite is never shown, the culprit is unknown, meaning it could essentially be any of the animatrons, but the news clipping at the end of night 6 about the toy animatrons being shut down due to malfunctions points more directly at one of them being the culprit, circumstantial visual evidence of other animatrons aside. It is more likely that Golden Freddy is Fredbear, because he is broken down and unused...but this is speculation. The conjecture about the closure of Freddy's and then eventual reopening to a smaller budget is definitely appears supported by the phone guy's transcripts in FNaF. There is a lot of contextual support that Freddy's has been closed down for a while (disrepair, older office), and especially since the advertisement for the job mentions a reopening. The smaller budget means that the other animatrons are being used in lieu of the scrapped toy animatrons (most likely because one of them was responsible for the bite of '87). Phone guy probably mentioned that he never liked the puppet in FNaF2 because the puppet doesn't look very friendly for one (it probably just creeped him out), and two, it appeared to have a mind of its own, hence the "it's always thinking" comment. The posters changing on the walls to crying children are most likely contextual hallucinations referring to incident of the missing children, since those events are described on the other changing posters. Phone guy is probably discovered by the animatrons because he's so damned noisy (he mentioned their tendencies to react to noise by finding the source of it), not because they know something about him. The animatrons most likely do not view the player as being a threat, but because it is night and they are allowed to roam, as mere endoskeleton such as the phone guy mentioned. It explains more this way than any other explanation, and the phone guy may be speculating that you could be stuffed into a suit based on the fate of the previous security guard who was, nothing more. Either that, or: the player is seen as an intruder who is out of place, and because the animatrons are hostile towards adults, and is attacked. At very best, all that is not mentioned directly is guesswork at this point. Paranormal activity as an element in both games and the mechanics of their antagonists has been confirmed by Scott Cawthon, but nothing beyond this is currently known. The identity and role of phone guy, the puppet in the second game, why there's no doors in the office in FNaF2, why Golden Freddy is such a colour, why the place is even OPEN again after all of the events from FNaF2, etc. Perhaps with FNaF3, some light will be shed on it. tl;dr : That's just a theory, and it's a WILDLY speculative one. That's all I've got.